[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56222-56231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14355]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0524; FRL-11525-02-R9]


Air Plan Revisions; California; Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Contingency Measure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to 
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
an amendment to the California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program (also referred to as ``Smog Check'') to include a 
contingency measure that, if triggered, would narrow the Smog Check 
inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles in certain 
California nonattainment areas. The EPA is taking final action to 
approve, as part of the California SIP, the contingency measure and a 
related statutory provision that authorizes the contingency measure 
because they meet all the applicable requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0524. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance 
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a 
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, 
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 947-4152; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. EPA Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On December 20, 2023 (88 FR 87981) (``proposed rule''), the EPA 
proposed to approve a SIP revision concerning an amendment to the 
California Smog Check program to include a contingency measure to 
address in part the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas in 
California. This contingency measure, if triggered, would narrow the 
existing Smog Check inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles 
in certain California nonattainment areas. The SIP revision is titled 
``California Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan 
Revision'' (Released: September 15, 2023) (``Smog Check Contingency 
Measure SIP''). The Smog Check Contingency Measure itself is presented 
in Section 4 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. Other sections 
of the submission address the contingency measure requirements, discuss 
the opportunities for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to 
adopt contingency measures, provide the background on the California 
Smog Check program, and present the emission reductions estimates for 
the ten California nonattainment areas for which the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure was developed. The appendices included with the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include an infeasibility analysis, 
documentation of emissions estimates, and California Health & Safety 
Code (H&SC) section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), effective October 10, 2017.
    In Table 1, we list the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and the 
related statutory provision with the dates they were adopted and 
submitted by CARB.

[[Page 56223]]



                               Table 1--Submitted Measure and Statutory Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Measure/statutory
    Agency         Statute No.       provision title      Adopted/amended/ revised             Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB.........  Not Applicable....  California Smog     October 26, 2023.............  November 13, 2023.
                                    Check Contingency
                                    Measure State
                                    Implementation
                                    Plan Revision.
CARB.........  California H&SC     Certificate of      Effective on October 10, 2017  November 13, 2023.
                section             compliance or
                44011(a)(4)(A)      noncompliance;
                and (B).            biennial
                                    requirement;
                                    exceptions;
                                    inspections;
                                    exemption from
                                    testing for
                                    collector motor
                                    vehicle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided a discussion of 
the regulatory background leading to CARB's adoption and submission of 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. In short, CARB submitted the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to address, in part, the contingency 
measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 
CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas with respect to certain 
ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS).
    The applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS are Coachella Valley 
(2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), Eastern Kern County (2008 and 2015 ozone 
NAAQS), Mariposa County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Sacramento Metro Area (2008 
and 2015 ozone NAAQS), San Diego County (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), 
San Joaquin Valley (1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 1997 annual, 2006 
24-hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), South Coast Air Basin 
(2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), 
Ventura County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Western Mojave Desert (2008 and 2015 
ozone NAAQS) and Western Nevada County (2015 ozone NAAQS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, Table 1, at page 3. The 
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP lists the various NAAQS by their 
associated concentration level rather than by the year the EPA 
promulgated the standard. The various ozone NAAQS addressed by the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include the 70 parts per billion 
(ppb) ozone NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS (2008 
ozone NAAQS), the 80 ppb ozone NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS), the 15 
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) PM2.5 NAAQS 
(the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ 
PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS), 
and the 12 [micro]g/m\3\ PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we explained that, under the current 
California Smog Check program, certain vehicles are exempt from the 
biennial inspection requirement, including vehicles eight or fewer 
model years old. The Smog Check Contingency Measure, if triggered, will 
reduce this exemption to vehicles seven or fewer model years old in the 
nonattainment area(s) at issue upon the first triggering event and to 
vehicles six or fewer model years old in the nonattainment area(s) at 
issue upon a second triggering event. Reducing the inspection exemption 
will increase the number of inspected and repaired vehicles and 
therefore result in additional emission reductions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 88 FR 87981, page 87983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Smog Check Contingency Measure, within 30 days of the 
EPA's determination that a nonattainment area covered by the measure 
has failed to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone, meet 
a qualitative milestone, submit a required quantitative milestone 
report or milestone compliance demonstration, or attain the relevant 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CARB will be obligated to 
transmit a letter to the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) 
and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). CARB's letter 
will include the necessary finding that providing an exemption from 
Smog Check for certain vehicles in the area(s) (defined by specified 
ZIP Codes) at issue will prohibit the State from meeting the State's 
commitments with respect to the SIP required by the CAA, effectuating a 
reduction in the Smog Check vehicle inspection exemption to begin with 
the new calendar year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, at pages 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon receipt of the CARB letter and the applicable ZIP Codes, CARB, 
BAR and DMV staff will begin implementation of the change in exemption 
length to Smog Check and take the following actions: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     DMV will update their Smog Check renewal programing to 
require a Smog Check inspection for the eight model years old vehicles 
(or seven model years old vehicles in the case of a second trigger) in 
the ZIP Codes provided by CARB staff;
     The eight to seven model years old (or seven to six model 
years old) exemption change will begin for registrations expiring 
beginning January 1st of the applicable year, considering the time it 
takes for DMV to program this change and their registration renewal 
process;
     60 days before the expiration date of the vehicle 
registration, DMV will send out registration renewals that include 
these newly impacted vehicles along with those already subject to Smog 
Check inspection;
     The notice will include information on the change in 
exemptions, reason for change, and resources for obtaining a Smog Check 
inspection from a certified station;
     CARB staff will work with DMV to develop and include an 
informational paper that will accompany the registration renewal with 
the information as included in the notice; and
     BAR and DMV will administer and enforce the new changes to 
the Smog Check Program.
    In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided our evaluation 
of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for 
proposing approval.\5\ In short, we found that CARB had met the 
procedural requirements for SIPs and SIP revisions, found that CARB had 
adequate legal authority to implement the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure, and found that the applicable State agencies would have 
adequate personnel and funding for carrying out the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure. We also explained how the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure would be enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2), 
how the Smog Check Contingency Measure would meet the requirements for 
an individual contingency measure under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, and how approval of the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure would not interfere with RFP, attainment, or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act consistent with the 
requirements under CAA section 110(l). In addition, we presented CARB's 
estimates of the expected emissions reductions from implementation of 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the various nonattainment areas 
for the relevant NAAQS for which the measure was developed. We 
indicated that, based on

[[Page 56224]]

our review, we found the estimates to be reasonable and adequately 
documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87983-87987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last, we explained that we were proposing to approve the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure 
for the various applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS, but we were 
not proposing to make any determination as to whether the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP would be sufficient by itself for CARB and the 
relevant air districts to fully comply with the contingency measure SIP 
requirements in any specific nonattainment area for any specific NAAQS 
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We 
indicated in our proposed rule that we will be evaluating the 
contingency measure SIP plan elements for compliance with the full SIP 
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 
51.1014 in the relevant future actions on nonattainment plan SIP 
submissions for each respective nonattainment area. In these separate 
actions, we will evaluate the estimated emissions reductions from the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure, in conjunction with the estimated 
emission reductions from any other submitted contingency measures for 
each area and each NAAQS at issue, to determine whether the contingency 
measures, taken together, provide the requisite emissions reductions or 
otherwise meet the contingency measure requirements under CAA sections 
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, as applicable.
    Our December 20, 2023 proposed rule contains more information on 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for proposing 
approval.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments from CARB,\6\ comments from a 
group comprised of the Central California Environmental Justice 
Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for Healthy 
Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives (collectively referred to in 
this document as ``Valley EJ Organizations'') \7\ and comments from a 
group comprised of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, National 
Park Conservation Association, Little Manila Rising and Valley 
Improvement Projects (collectively referred to in this document as 
``CVAQ'').\8\ All the comment letters and exhibits can be found in the 
docket for this rulemaking. In the following paragraphs, we summarize 
the comments and provide our responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB, 
to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated 
January 12, 2024.
    \7\ Letter from Brent Newell, Attorney for Central California 
Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical 
Advocates for Healthy Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives, to 
Jeffrey Buss and Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, dated January 19, 2024. 
The letter includes 16 exhibits as attachments.
    \8\ Letter from Dr. Catherine Garoupa, Executive Director, CVAQ, 
et al., to Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, dated January 19, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB Comment #1: CARB indicates that, in the proposed rule, the EPA 
erroneously indicates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is 
designed to achieve the estimated emissions reductions within roughly a 
year of the triggering event. CARB clarifies that instead, the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve emissions reductions 
as soon as possible within a two-year time frame after the triggering 
event, recognizing that changes in Smog Check exemptions would begin at 
the start of a calendar year, that the California DMV will require time 
to update their systems and notify vehicle owners impacted by the 
measure, and that triggering events are dependent on the effective date 
of the EPA action. The California DMV's vehicle registration renewal 
program cycles annually beginning on January 1st of each year. Thus, 
CARB explains that, depending upon when the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure is triggered, when the DMV completes the related systems' 
update and provides notification to affected vehicle owners, and the 
length of time left until the beginning of the next calendar year, it 
could take more than one year to achieve the associated emissions 
reductions, but that these reductions should occur within two years 
from an applicable triggering event. CARB believes that this timeline 
for achieving reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure is 
consistent with the EPA's draft contingency measure guidance concerning 
the timing of emissions reductions from contingency measures.
    EPA Response to CARB Comment #1: The EPA appreciates CARB's 
clarification of the timeline for when emissions reductions from the 
measure would be achieved (once triggered). While the timeline for 
achieving emissions reductions is potentially longer than we described 
in our proposed rule, we do not find the more extended timeline to 
present an obstacle to approval of the contingency measure because the 
reductions occur within two years and CARB's explanation is reasonable 
as to why the reductions cannot occur within the first year.
    Based on CARB's explanation, we now more fully understand that the 
California DMV's vehicle registration renewal program cycles annually 
beginning on January 1st of each year, and thus, if the contingency 
measure triggering event (e.g., finding of failure to attain the NAAQS 
by the applicable attainment date) occurs late in the calendar year, 
DMV will not have time to update its Smog Check renewal programming in 
the ZIP Codes provided by CARB in time for the registration renewals to 
be available for mailing to vehicle owners who must renew their 
registrations in January. If there is insufficient time, then DMV's 
update to the Smog Check renewal programming will not be reflected in 
vehicle registration renewal notices until the following January 1st. 
The EPA understands that as a result of the existing vehicle 
registration cycle, the full anticipated emission reductions would take 
longer to achieve, but this is reasonable given the nature of the 
measure.
    In March 2023, the EPA published notice of availability of a new 
draft guidance addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements in 
section 172(c)(9) for nonattainment areas generally and in CAA section 
182(c)(9) for ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious and higher. 
This document is entitled ``Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State 
Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area 
Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter 
(DRAFT-- 3/17/23--Public Review Version)'' (referred to in this 
document as the ``Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance''). The 
EPA provided an opportunity for public comment.\9\ The principal 
differences between the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance and 
existing guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's 
recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission reductions 
that implementation of contingency measures should achieve and the 
timing for when the emissions reductions from the contingency measures 
should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the time period within which reductions from 
contingency measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that 
contingency measures take effect within 60 days of a triggering event, 
and that the resulting emission reductions generally occur within one 
year of the triggering event. Under the Draft

[[Page 56225]]

Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, in instances where there are 
insufficient contingency measures available to achieve the recommended 
amount of emissions reductions within one year of the triggering event, 
the EPA believes that contingency measures that provide reductions 
within two years of the triggering event would be appropriate to 
consider toward achieving the recommended amount of emissions 
reductions. We think that contingency measures that result in 
additional emissions reductions during the second year following the 
triggering event, as contemplated by the Draft Revised Contingency 
Measure Guidance, would still serve the important purpose of 
contingency measures to continue progress towards attainment, as the 
State develops and submits, and the EPA acts on, a SIP submission to 
address the underlying deficiency.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in our Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance 
document, we believe that reductions from contingency measures should 
be achieved as soon as possible. If an air agency elects to adopt 
contingency measures that will require more than one year from the 
triggering event to achieve the full amount of necessary reductions, 
then it should provide an adequate explanation of why the reductions 
could not be achieved within the first year and how much additional 
time is needed (up to one additional year).\11\ We find that CARB's 
clarification of the timeline for achieving full emissions reductions 
from the Smog Check Contingency Measure (summarized in CARB Comment #1) 
adequately explains why the reductions may not be fully achieved until 
the second year after the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB Comment #2: CARB disagrees with the EPA's presentation in 
Table 2 of the proposed rule of the emissions reductions estimates for 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the applicable nonattainment 
areas for the relevant NAAQS. Specifically, CARB contends that the EPA 
should not have discounted the emissions reductions calculated for 
implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure by the potentially 
foregone emissions reductions calculated from the reduction in Carl 
Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (``Carl Moyer 
Program'') \12\ funding due to decreased funding from the Smog Check 
abatement fee that would result from the narrowing of the Smog Check 
inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles.\13\ CARB asserts 
that the estimated potential loss in reductions from the foregone Carl 
Moyer Program funding should not be factored into the estimated 
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funding for cleaner-
than-required engines, equipment, and other sources of air 
pollution. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a partnership 
between CARB and California's 35 local air districts.
    \13\ As explained on page 1 of the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure SIP, the California Smog Check program allows vehicles eight 
or less model-years old to be exempt from requirements for Smog 
Check inspections. In lieu of an inspection, this law requires seven 
and eight model-year old vehicles owners to pay an annual Smog 
Abatement Fee of $25, $21 of which goes to the Air Pollution Control 
Fund for use to incentivize clean vehicles and equipment through the 
Carl Moyer Program. Narrowing of the inspection exemption for such 
vehicles would reduce Smog Abatement fee funds collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB explains that the estimated emissions reductions from the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure are calculated from CARB's current baseline 
SIP emissions inventory, while potential reductions from anticipated 
future projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program are not accounted 
for in baseline SIP inventories. Although the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure's impact on funding for the Carl Moyer Program is described as 
a potential emissions disbenefit, CARB indicates that the information 
was included only to better inform the public of potential impacts and 
should not be accounted for in the calculated emissions reductions for 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure. CARB contends that the emissions 
reductions listed in the table titled ``Potential Reductions from 
Measure'' for each nonattainment area in Section 5 of the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP are the correct estimates for the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure.
    EPA Response to CARB Comment #2: We do not agree that the overall 
estimate of emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure should not take into account reasonably foreseeable emissions 
consequences. However, upon reconsideration, we agree with CARB that 
the foregone emissions reductions calculated by CARB resulting from 
reduced Carl Moyer Program funding should not be taken into account 
when evaluating the emissions reductions from the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure because the timing of the reduced funding and its 
impact on emissions reductions would not occur during the two-year 
implementation period for the Smog Check Contingency Measure.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For perspective, we note, based on CARB's estimated 
emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure and 
foregone emissions reductions from reduced Carl Moyer Program 
funding presented in Section 5 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP, that the foregone emissions reductions are about one, to more 
than two, orders of magnitude lower than the emissions reductions 
from implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reduced funding that would follow the triggering of the 
contingency measure would potentially affect emissions-reducing 
projects three or more years following the triggering event, based on 
the typical timeline for issuing grants and implementing emissions-
reducing projects using Carl Moyer Program funding. This conclusion is 
based on information on implementation of the Carl Moyer Program 
provided by CARB.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See email from Ariel Fideldy, Manager, CARB, dated February 
16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We, therefore, have re-published Table 2 from the proposed rule 
without accounting for the predicted emissions impacts from 
corresponding reductions in funds paid into the Carl Moyer Program, and 
find the amounts in Table 2 to be reasonable estimates of the emissions 
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure for the applicable 
nonattainment areas and relevant NAAQS.

               Table 2--Revised Estimated Emissions Reductions From Smog Check Contingency Measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Emissions reductions (tons per
                                                                                             day) \a\
          Nonattainment area                Applicable NAAQS       Analysis year -------------------------------
                                                                                        NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coachella Valley......................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2031           0.008           0.003
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2037           0.008           0.003
Eastern Kern County...................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2026           0.003           0.001

[[Page 56226]]

 
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2032           0.003           0.001
Mariposa County.......................  2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2026          0.0003          0.0001
Sacramento Metro......................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2024           0.077           0.037
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2032           0.047           0.015
San Diego County......................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2026           0.065           0.027
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2032           0.056           0.016
San Joaquin Valley....................  1997 Ozone NAAQS........            2023           0.112           0.056
                                        2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2031           0.079           0.025
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2037           0.076           0.024
                                        1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.            2023           0.117           0.052
                                        2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS            2024           0.120           0.052
                                        2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.            2030           0.086           0.027
South Coast Air Basin.................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2029           0.295           0.096
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2035           0.254           0.077
                                        2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.            2030           0.300           0.093
Ventura County........................  2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2026           0.013           0.005
West Mojave Desert....................  2008 Ozone NAAQS........            2026           0.021           0.009
                                        2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2032           0.018           0.006
Western Nevada County.................  2015 Ozone NAAQS........            2026           0.002           0.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions estimates shown in this table are summarized from information presented in section 5 of the Smog
  Check Contingency Measure SIP. For ozone nonattainment areas, the estimates represent summer planning season
  values. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the estimates represent annual average values.

    Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: Citing 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i), Valley EJ Organizations assert that CARB 
submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to comply with a Court 
order and the approved SIP, which require CARB to adopt and submit 
contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meeting the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act.\16\ Valley EJ 
Organizations contend, however, that the EPA has proposed approval of 
the Smog Check Revision without deciding whether the emissions 
reductions the Smog Check Contingency Measure achieves comply with 
either the EPA's current interpretation of the Act with respect to 
contingency measures or the EPA's proposed Draft Revised Contingency 
Measure Guidance. Valley EJ Organizations further assert that the EPA 
fails to acknowledge or explain why it proposes to defer action for 
contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley when the EPA has already approved the 2007 Ozone Plan, including 
contingency measures, and has approved the commitment by CARB to adopt 
and submit the contingency measures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The approved SIP in this instance refers to the San Joaquin 
Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and related documents and includes a 
commitment that CARB made to submit attainment contingency measures 
for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    \17\ Valley EJ Organizations refer to the EPA's final action on 
the San Joaquin Valley attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 
(2007 Ozone Plan) at 77 FR 12652, 12670 (March 1, 2012) and 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: The EPA agrees 
that CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for several 
purposes. First, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP 
to address, in part, the contingency measure SIP requirements for 
certain nonattainment areas for certain NAAQS. The relevant areas and 
NAAQS that CARB addressed in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP 
include 10 nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, seven areas 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, two areas for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS, one area for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and one 
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\18\ The San Joaquin Valley is the one 
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to which the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to 
respond to recent court actions to meet statutory deadlines related to 
contingency measures.\19\ In connection with one of the recent court 
actions, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to 
respond to a Court order \20\ compelling CARB to fulfill CARB's 
commitment to develop, adopt and submit attainment contingency measures 
\21\ meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) that the EPA 
approved in connection with the approval of the San Joaquin Valley 
ozone attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\22\ In this final 
action, we are not determining whether the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure SIP fulfills CARB's commitment, but we are approving the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency 
measure for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, among other 
areas and other NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 1.
    \20\ Central California Environmental Justice Center v. 
Randolph, E.D. Cal., 22-cv-01714, ECF Nos. #41 and #52.
    \21\ Under CAA sections 172(c)(9), States required to make an 
attainment plan SIP submission must include contingency measures to 
be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP (``RFP contingency 
measures'') or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date (``attainment contingency measures''). Unless 
otherwise indicated, references to ``contingency measures'' in this 
document do not distinguish between the two types of contingency 
measures.
    \22\ 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012); 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we acknowledged that we are not, in this 
action, making a determination as to whether the State and relevant 
District have fully met the contingency measure SIP requirements under 
CAA sections 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) in any given area, but rather, we 
explained that we are taking action to approve the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure 
for the various nonattainment areas and NAAQS to which the SIP 
applies.\23\ We indicated that we will be

[[Page 56227]]

acting on the full contingency measure SIP plan elements in the 
relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas 
and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions 
reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure in 
conjunction with the reductions from other submitted contingency 
measures, at that time.\24\ An example of such a separate rulemaking is 
our recent proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 
contingency measure SIP element in which we are proposing to approve 
the components that comprise the contingency measure plan, 
collectively, as meeting the requirements for contingency measures for 
the San Joaquin Valley for the various PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA 
section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.\25\ As part of our evaluation and 
proposed approval, we are taking into account the emissions reductions 
presented in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for the San Joaquin 
Valley for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 88 FR 87981, page 87987.
    \24\ Id., pages 87987 and 87988.
    \25\ 88 FR 87988 (December 20, 2023).
    \26\ 88 FR 87988, 88003-88005 (December 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have taken this approach of acting on the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure as an individual contingency measure separately from acting on 
the contingency measure element for each given nonattainment area, 
consistent with CARB's conceptual design for the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure SIP, which anticipates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
would, if triggered, change the exemptions for motor vehicles under the 
California Smog Check Program for the relevant local nonattainment area 
and NAAQS, and that, together with the local air districts' contingency 
measures, address the contingency measure requirements of the Act.\27\ 
In future actions, we will evaluate whether CARB and the relevant 
District have addressed the full contingency measure SIP element 
requirements of the CAA by considering the emissions reductions 
attributed to the Smog Check Contingency Measure taken together with 
each local air districts' additional submitted contingency measures, 
along with any infeasibility justifications that may also be submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, pages 11 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our evaluation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as an 
individual contingency measure included a review of the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure itself for compliance with the requirements for 
individual contingency measures as set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9) 
and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. In short, we found that that the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure is designed to be both prospective and 
conditional, that the Smog Check Contingency Measure includes an 
appropriate triggering mechanism, that the narrowing of the exemption 
for newer vehicles from Smog Check inspections is not required for any 
other CAA purpose, that the emissions reductions from the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure are not included in any RFP or attainment 
demonstration in any of the applicable nonattainment areas, that the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure is structured so as to be implemented in 
a timely manner without significant further action by the State or EPA 
and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the 
estimated emissions reductions within roughly a year of the triggering 
event.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87985 and 87986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As summarized in CARB Comment #1, CARB has explained why the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the estimated 
emissions reductions within two years of the triggering event, but not 
necessarily within a year of the triggering event. As discussed in EPA 
Response to CARB Comment #1, we find CARB's explanation to be adequate 
and that the timeline for achieving the emissions reductions from the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure to be acceptable for the purposes of CAA 
section 172(c)(9). For these reasons, we find that the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure meets the requirements for individual contingency 
measures.
    With one exception, we expect the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP to be supplemented by additional SIP revisions that, considered 
together, will be evaluated for compliance with the contingency measure 
SIP element requirement for each nonattainment area and NAAQS to which 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure applies. The one exception is the 
San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    We acknowledge that, in the proposed rule, we did not include a 
specific discussion of the implications of our proposed action with 
respect to the contingency measure SIP planning requirements for the 
1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley. Unlike the other 
nonattainment areas, we also acknowledge that, as the EJ Valley 
Organizations assert, the EPA has already taken action on the 
contingency measure element for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS.\29\ We approved the contingency measure element, in part, in 
reliance on CARB's commitment to adopt and submit contingency measures 
to comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA 
section 172(c)(9) as those requirements relate to a potential failure 
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\30\ 
CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to, among other 
reasons, fulfill the commitment made by CARB in connection with the 
EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
    \30\ 77 FR 12652, 12670 (March 1, 2012); 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
as a contingency measure for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, along with the other areas and NAAQS. But, we will be taking 
separate action on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to evaluate 
whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills the attainment-
related contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) 
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The CAA 
establishes a deadline for EPA action on SIP submissions of 12 months 
from the determination of completeness.\31\ We issued our completeness 
determination for the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP in our 
December 20, 2023 proposed rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA section 110(k)(2).
    \32\ 88 FR 87981, page 87982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: Valley EJ Organizations assert 
that the EPA fails to decide whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP complies with the existing SIP and the CAA with respect to the 
amount of emissions reductions achieved for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 
Citing CAA section 172(c)(9), the Valley EJ Organizations contend that 
this violates the plain meaning of the Act's contingency measures 
provision and is arbitrary and capricious because contingency measures 
must be fully adopted, ready for implementation, and included in the 
plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case 
without further action by the State or the Administrator. The Valley EJ 
Organizations also contend that the EPA must act on the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP so that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is 
part of the plan, no further action by the EPA is pending, and the 
measure is

[[Page 56228]]

ready for implementation upon a failure to attain the standard by the 
applicable attainment date for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, i.e., June 15, 2024. The Valley EJ Organizations assert that, 
without EPA action to determine that the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP meets the requirements for contingency measures for San Joaquin 
Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
will not be part of the SIP, not ready to take effect without further 
action by the EPA, and not federally enforceable.
    EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: As discussed in 
more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the 
EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP 
as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the 
applicable requirements for a contingency measure. As noted by the 
Valley EJ Organizations, the EPA is not, in this action, determining 
whether the San Joaquin Valley has met the contingency measure 
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, this does not mean that 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure itself will not be approved as part 
of the California SIP or federally enforceable.
    Upon the effective date of our final action to approve the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure SIP, the Smog Check Contingency Measure will 
be federally enforceable as a part of the approved California SIP. This 
means that the Smog Check Contingency Measure will be triggered in San 
Joaquin Valley if the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley failed 
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2024, applicable 
attainment date.
    Our finding in this regard is based on the language in CARB 
Resolution 23-20, adopting the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a 
revision to the California SIP, conditioned upon the EPA's final 
approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a contingency measure 
under the CAA.\33\ In our action today, we are approving the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure as a contingency measure under the CAA for the 
various nonattainment areas and NAAQS addressed by the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CARB Resolution 23-20 (October 26, 2023), page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: Valley EJ Organizations object 
to the EPA's proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion because the 
emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are far below the 
magnitude of emissions reductions that Valley EJ Organizations assert 
are required for San Joaquin Valley to meet the contingency measures 
SIP requirement under the CAA. Valley EJ Organizations also object to 
the proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP on the 
grounds that approval of the contingency measure with respect to the 
1997 ozone NAAQS would violate the anti-backsliding bar in CAA section 
110(l) by weakening the amount of reductions required by the commitment 
CARB made, and EPA approved, as part of the San Joaquin Valley SIP for 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to Valley EJ Organizations, the 
commitment that CARB made in connection with the EPA's approval of the 
San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP can only be achieved through contingency 
measures that would achieve collectively one year's worth of RFP, the 
EPA's interpretation (at the time of the EPA's approval of the 
commitment) of the amount of emissions reductions contingency measures 
should achieve to meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures 
for a given nonattainment area. Under this premise, Valley EJ 
Organizations contend that approval of the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure, which would reduce emissions (if triggered) by far less than 
one year's worth of RFP would be prohibited under CAA section 110(l). 
In the alternative, Valley EJ Organizations assert that the EPA has 
unlawfully and arbitrarily failed to consider and make a finding with 
respect to whether the approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard constitutes illegal 
backsliding.
    EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: As discussed in 
more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the 
EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP 
as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the 
applicable requirements for individual contingency measures. The EPA is 
not, in this action, determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has 
fully met the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS. Thus, the EPA has not yet determined whether the emissions 
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure suffice, on its own, 
to meet the contingency measure requirements for the San Joaquin Valley 
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We will be taking another separate action on 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and will evaluate the emissions 
reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure, as well 
as CARB's infeasibility justification for adopting the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure as the sole contingency measure for San Joaquin 
Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, at that time.
    Lastly, in our proposed rule, we did review the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP for compliance with CAA section 110(l).\34\ In 
short, and in light of the scope of this rulemaking, i.e., to evaluate 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual 
contingency measure, we found that the Smog Check Contingency Measure, 
if triggered, would result in additional emissions reductions beyond 
those included in the RFP and attainment demonstration for the 
applicable nonattainment areas. Thus, we proposed to find that the 
approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP itself is consistent 
with CAA section 110(l) and would not interfere with RFP, attainment or 
any other applicable requirement of the Act.\35\ We are finalizing that 
finding in this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 88 FR 87981, page 87986.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CVAQ Comment #1: CVAQ asserts that the EPA has no authority to 
approve contingency measures that provide less than one year's worth of 
RFP and has no authority to adopt a feasibility-based exemption that 
conditions contingency measures on their technological or economic 
infeasibility for polluters. CVAQ states that San Joaquin Valley 
residents need measures that will result in significant reductions that 
put health at the forefront, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
would only reduce around 0.1 tpd of NOX or less in the San 
Joaquin Valley. This is, according to CVAQ, especially problematic for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which the San Joaquin Valley will fail to 
attain in six months, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure is the 
only contingency measure California has adopted for that NAAQS. CVAQ 
asserts that the EPA's interpretation of the contingency measure 
requirements only benefits industry to the detriment of some of the 
nation's most impacted communities, and that the EPA's actions run 
counter to the Biden Administration's commitment to environmental 
justice and Civil Rights.
    EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #1: In this rulemaking, the EPA is

[[Page 56229]]

approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure as an individual 
contingency measure because the measure has the necessary attributes of 
a CAA contingency measure,\36\ but the EPA is not making any 
determination in this action as to whether the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure alone is sufficient to meet fully the contingency measure SIP 
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 
in any particular nonattainment area for any particular NAAQS. As noted 
in our proposed rule, we will be acting on the contingency measure SIP 
plan elements in the relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for 
the respective areas and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will 
consider the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure at that time.\37\ In future actions on area-
specific contingency measure elements, the EPA will take into account 
the amount of emissions reductions from the contingency measures for a 
given area and evaluate the approvability of the contingency measure 
element as a whole, including any relevant justifications for a 
contingency measure or measures that does not, or do not, provide for 
the recommended amount of emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ As discussed on pages 87985 and 87986 of our proposed rule, 
the necessary attributes for individual contingency measures include 
being designed to be prospective and conditional, to include 
appropriate triggering mechanisms, to not being required for any 
other CAA purpose, to being designed to be implemented in a timely 
manner without significant further action by the State or the EPA, 
and to achieve emissions reductions within a year or two of the 
triggering event.
    \37\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87987 and 87988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CVAQ Comment #2: CVAQ contends that the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure would impose the burden of compliance costs on San Joaquin 
Valley residents who fall under the highest socioeconomic disadvantages 
in the State, further contradicting the Biden Administration's 
commitment to environmental justice and Civil Rights. CVAQ also 
contends that adopting the proposed weak contingency measure goes 
against this commitment by refusing to hold the region's largest 
polluters accountable, discounting community priorities and continuing 
racist polluting practices.
    EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #2: The burden for compliance with the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure would fall on owners of motor vehicles 
seven or eight model years old. Using DMV vehicle registration data, 
CARB staff found that, in all the subject nonattainment areas, the 
proportion of vehicle owners potentially impacted in Disadvantaged 
Communities (DACs) \38\ by the Smog Check Contingency Measure, if 
triggered, is about equal to the proportion of vehicle owners 
potentially impacted in the nonattainment area as a whole.\39\ 
According to CARB's findings, the burden of compliance and the 
environmental benefits of the Smog Check Contingency Measure will not 
disproportionately impact DACs in the nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DAC is defined under State law, namely Senate Bill 535, as 
census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in 
CalEnviroScreen 4.0. See Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 
18.
    \39\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of CARB's evaluation of the impacts of the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure, CARB noted that repair costs under the Smog Check 
program vary, but generally cost $750 on average, which could be a 
significant cost burden.\40\ However, CARB also noted that financial 
assistance for repairs is available for income-eligible vehicle owners 
through BAR's Consumer Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,200 
for repair costs.\41\ To be eligible for financial assistance, a 
vehicle owner must have a gross household income less than or equal to 
225% of the Federal poverty level. This financial assistance program 
should help to address CVAQ's concern about the burden of compliance 
costs for those eligible households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ For more information, visit https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/consumer-assistance-program. In addition, the SJVUAPCD 
operates its own ``Drive Clean in the San Joaquin'' program that 
helps pay for Smog Check tests and repairs: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/drive-clean-in-the-san-joaquin/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This document takes final action to approve the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure SIP that CARB submitted to address, in part, 
contingency measure SIP requirements for certain nonattainment areas in 
California for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Information on 
ozone and PM2.5 and their relationship to negative health 
impacts can be found on the EPA's website.
    Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As 
explained in the EJ Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice 2022 
document,\42\ the CAA provides States with the discretion to consider 
environmental justice in developing rules and measures related to 
nonattainment area SIP requirements, including contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ EPA, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, CARB exercised this discretion and evaluated 
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submission.\43\ 
CARB analyzed whether there would be disproportionate impact on 
disadvantaged communities within the affected nonattainment areas if 
the contingency measure were triggered and analyzed the impacts of the 
contingency measure on vehicle owners in disadvantaged communities.\44\ 
Based on the results of these analyses, CARB concluded that the Smog 
Check Contingency Measure is consistent with CARB's environmental 
justice policies and would not disproportionately impact people of any 
race, culture, income, or national origin.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, Section 4.B (``Title VI 
and Environmental Justice'').
    \44\ Id, at pages 18-20.
    \45\ CARB Resolution 23-20, October 26, 2023, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing CARB's analysis, the EPA defers to CARB's reasonable 
exercise of its discretion in considering EJ in this way. The EPA is 
taking final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP 
because it meets minimum requirements pursuant to the CAA and relevant 
implementing regulations. The EPA also finds that consideration of EJ 
analyses in this context is reasonable. The EPA encourages air agencies 
generally to evaluate environmental justice considerations of their 
actions and carefully consider impacts to communities. The EJ analyses 
submitted by CARB were considered but were not the basis for the EPA's 
decision to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as meeting 
the minimum applicable requirements.

IV. EPA Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons 
provided in our December 20, 2023 proposed rule and in the responses to 
comments provided in this document, the EPA is taking final action to 
approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and a related statutory 
provision (i.e., California H&SC section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), 
operative October 10, 2017). Our action is based on our finding that 
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP meets the applicable procedural 
and substantive CAA requirements for SIP revisions; that the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure itself meets applicable requirements for a valid

[[Page 56230]]

contingency measure under the CAA and the EPA's implementation 
regulations; and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure would achieve 
additional emissions reductions of NOX and VOC, if triggered 
by certain EPA determinations, in Coachella Valley, Eastern Kern 
County, Mariposa County, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San 
Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, West Mojave 
Desert, and Western Nevada County.
    We are not making any determination presently as to whether this 
individual contingency measure is sufficient by itself for CARB and the 
relevant air district to fully comply with the contingency measure 
requirements in any specific nonattainment area or specific NAAQS under 
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We will be 
acting on the contingency measure SIP plan elements in the relevant 
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas and NAAQS 
in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions reductions 
associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure at that time. This 
final action adds the Smog Check Contingency Measure and the related 
statutory provision to the federally enforceable California SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 
California Health & Safety Code section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), which 
authorizes CARB to narrow the newer model vehicle Smog Check inspection 
exemption. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX 
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). 
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion 
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference 
by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 
110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking 
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next 
update to the SIP compilation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves a State measure as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe 
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, this action does not have Tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt 
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).
    Furthermore, Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), directs Federal 
agencies to identify and address ``disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects'' of their actions on minority 
populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice 
(EJ) as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to 
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair 
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.''
    CARB evaluated environmental justice considerations as part of its 
SIP submission given that the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA 
reviewed and considered the air agency's evaluation of environmental 
justice considerations of this action, as is described in Section III 
(``Environmental Justice Considerations'') of this document, as part of 
the EPA's review. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, 
this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air 
quality of the affected areas. In addition, there is no information in 
the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving 
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and 
Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2024. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be

[[Page 56231]]

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 25, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(613) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (613) The following plan was submitted electronically on November 
13, 2023 by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter of the 
same date.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) ``California Smog Check Contingency Measure State 
Implementation Plan Revision,'' adopted on October 26, 2023.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. In Section 52.220a, amend paragraph (c), Table 1 by adding a heading 
for ``Division 26 (Air Resources), Part 5 (Vehicular Air Pollution 
Control), Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection Program), Article 2 
(Program Requirements)'' after the entry for ``41962''; and under the 
new heading, adding an entry for ``44011(a)(4)(A) and (B)'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220a  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                            Table 1--EPA-Approved Statutes and State Regulations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State                              Additional
         State citation               Title/subject       effective date   EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Division 26 (Air Resources), Part 5 (Vehicular Air Pollution Control), Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection
                                   Program), Article 2 (Program Requirements)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44011(a)(4)(A) and (B).........  Certificate of               10/10/2017  7/9/2024, [Insert   Submitted on
                                  compliance or                            Federal Register    November 13, 2023
                                  noncompliance;                           CITATION].          as an attachment
                                  biennial requirement;                                        to a letter of
                                  exceptions;                                                  the same date.
                                  inspections; exemption
                                  from testing for
                                  collector motor
                                  vehicle.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable
  SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that
  are cited in certain regulations listed in Table 1. Approved California statutes that are nonregulatory or
  quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-14355 Filed 7-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P